Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock · ¶18

This hypothetical, really, is hardly a hypothetical at all. This Court confronted similar facts more than 150 years ago in The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557 (1871). There, a steamer transporting goods on Grand River operated “entirely within the limits of the State” of Michigan. Id., at 565. The steamer “did not run in connection with, or in continuation of, any line of vessels or railway leading to other States,” but “was employed in transporting goods destined for other States, or goods brought from without the limits of Michigan and destined to places within that State.” Ibid. Still, the Court held, the steamer “was engaged in commerce between the States.” Ibid. As the Court put it, “[t]he fact that several different and independent agencies are employed in transporting the commodity, some acting entirely in one State, and some acting through two or more States, does in no respect affect…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.